Wormholes

[Capmaster]

Looks like a smart feller ...ermm ...fart smeller

[flaninacupboard]

I mean come on...the compression engine was invented long ago...here in the year 2005 we still haven't made any signifigant improvements to the compression engine or the "gas" mileage one can achieve. And what pisses me off most is the major ingredient in gasoline is water

I'm not sure that's true. the car (or truck :P ) you drive today probably has no better economy than the one you owned 15 years ago. but your truck today has side impact bars, enlarged crumple zone, gps, airbags, electric windows, electric sunroof, air conditioning, electric steering, four wheel drive, ABS, rain sensors etc etc etc.
Plus american cars all have ridiculous sized engines. if you actually look at cars designed to be economical, you'll find they're always improving, not only in terms of the power they reap from small engines but also their mileage.

My house mate works for cummins designing diesel engines, there are lots of things being tried and tested, and improvements are constantly being made.

[BJ_M]

electric steering is crap - as is drive by wire throttle ..

side impact bars were in cars for many years, came out of them - and now the are putting them back in ..


gps and, except in a few rare cases, those navigation systems are totally stupid and a waste of time .. plus most boneheads cant drive and work one of those things anyway ... a compass is all you need cross country - though driving in michigan is easy and you cant get lost - when you hit a big lake , you turn ...

electric windows and sunroofs were on cars made in the 1940's , and rain sensors were on cars in the 50's .. same with air conditioning ..

4 wheel drive has been around since the 1890's

[BJ_M]

Looks like a smart feller ...ermm ...fart smeller

well you know - the family that plays together, stays together ..

[northcat_8]

I mean come on...the compression engine was invented long ago...here in the year 2005 we still haven't made any signifigant improvements to the compression engine or the "gas" mileage one can achieve. And what pisses me off most is the major ingredient in gasoline is water

I'm not sure that's true. the car (or truck :P ) you drive today probably has no better economy than the one you owned 15 years ago. but your truck today has side impact bars, enlarged crumple zone, gps, airbags, electric windows, electric sunroof, air conditioning, electric steering, four wheel drive, ABS, rain sensors etc etc etc.
Plus american cars all have ridiculous sized engines. if you actually look at cars designed to be economical, you'll find they're always improving, not only in terms of the power they reap from small engines but also their mileage.

My house mate works for cummins designing diesel engines, there are lots of things being tried and tested, and improvements are constantly being made.

I agree that improvements have been made as far as safety is concerned, but I had a 79' Chevy Scottsdale, it got 16 mpg with 33" tires on it. My 97' Tahoe gets 18 mpg with normal sized tires. Both GM 350 V8 engines. Where's the improvement? I can yank the engine out of the 79' and put it right into the 97, strip out all the computer shit and all the pollution control BS and nothing changes.

[flaninacupboard]

In america there is no incentive to make engines economical, since petrol is cheap. also, when designing a new car you're more likely to get new customers by improving the looks, features or top speed/0-60 speed than with a more economical model. come on, which sells more "the new ford, goes 35mph faster!" or "the new ford, DVD player in the back to keep the kids happ" or "the new ford, will save you $2 a week on gas."

Plus a truck is heavy, the engine is heavy. the engine is huge! i guess the 350 is cubic inches, right? that's 5.7 litres. My girlfriend drives a car with a 0.6 litre engine, it does 60 to the gallon. my car with a 1 litre engine does about 50 to the gallon if i don't rag it.

It's always interesting to see comparisons between european cars and american cars. the american cars always have much bigger engines, but normally perform worse. when you pay what we do for petrol THEN there will be an incentive for american manufacturers to increase economy. at the moment they probably do very nicely from the amount of gas you guzzle......

[BJ_M]

that is very true -- but i think soon the ways may change in North america

i see the new dodge full size van is selling very well in north America .. which is kinda funny since its a 1994 European Mercedes-Benz Van , it gets good gas milage , can turn on a dime, a 6 footer can stand up in one (in the tall roof model) and its easier to drive ... they have the 5cyl turbo diesel ..

[flaninacupboard]

Yeah the mercedes vans are good workhorses. we use two ford transits for deliveries, we would go bust if they did 18mpg!!

[vitualis]

I see that this thread has gone WAY off topic...

It is impossible to accelerate anything with mass to the speed of light (in vacuum). As you put more and more energy into accerating any object, as you approach light speed, that energy goes into increasing the mass of the object rather than into its velocity.

This is again where general relativity differs from classical Newtonian physics.

Again, this effect can be demonstrated experimentally (and easily so). If not for this, we should easily be able to accerate charged particles like electrons beyond light speed (needless to say we can't).

By the way, the light equivalent of a "sonic boom" is Cherekov radiation. It occurs commonly... because the speed of light is reduced in certain materials (e.g., water, glass, etc.) For example, nuclear fuel rods in water will often emit charged particles that travel in the water at velocities higher than that of light in water. This causes the light equivalent of the "sonic boom" and the rods glow with Cherenkov radiation.

@ Cap: part of what Einstein showed was the equivalence between energy and mass which is what makes nuclear energy possible.

Regards.

[Garibaldi]

For example, nuclear fuel rods in water will often emit charged particles that travel in the water at velocities higher than that of light in water. This causes the light equivalent of the "sonic boom" and the rods glow with Cherenkov radiation.

Light is slowed down in water, but are you saying that these particles (which I'm assuming do have mass, not like neutrinos or something) are travelling faster than the speed of light? Or are they still slower than the speed of light in a vacuum?

What about those theories at www.gravitywarpdrive.com. Any of that look credible or is it just gibberish? Any ideas of how to travel ftl without violating the laws of relativity?

[vitualis]

Light is slowed down in water, but are you saying that these particles (which I'm assuming do have mass, not like neutrinos or something) are travelling faster than the speed of light? Or are they still slower than the speed of light in a vacuum?

I can't quote numbers of the top of my head, but I think that in water, the speed of light is around 1/4 to 1/3 less. So, it is relatively easy for a particle to travel faster than the speed of light in water (and yes, it will still be less than the speed of light in vacuum).

What about those theories at www.gravitywarpdrive.com. Any of that look credible or is it just gibberish? Any ideas of how to travel ftl without violating the laws of relativity?

I haven't looked at that site... I'll have a read.

Regards.

[Garibaldi]

Light is slowed down in water, but are you saying that these particles (which I'm assuming do have mass, not like neutrinos or something) are travelling faster than the speed of light? Or are they still slower than the speed of light in a vacuum?

I can't quote numbers of the top of my head, but I think that in water, the speed of light is around 1/4 to 1/3 less. So, it is relatively easy for a particle to travel faster than the speed of light in water (and yes, it will still be less than the speed of light in vacuum).

What about those theories at www.gravitywarpdrive.com. Any of that look credible or is it just gibberish? Any ideas of how to travel ftl without violating the laws of relativity?

I haven't looked at that site... I'll have a read.

Regards.

Thanks for the quick reply.

[BJ_M]

Light is slowed down in water, but are you saying that these particles (which I'm assuming do have mass, not like neutrinos or something) are travelling faster than the speed of light? Or are they still slower than the speed of light in a vacuum?

I can't quote numbers of the top of my head, but I think that in water, the speed of light is around 1/4 to 1/3 less. So, it is relatively easy for a particle to travel faster than the speed of light in water (and yes, it will still be less than the speed of light in vacuum).

What about those theories at www.gravitywarpdrive.com. Any of that look credible or is it just gibberish? Any ideas of how to travel ftl without violating the laws of relativity?

I haven't looked at that site... I'll have a read.

Regards.

yep - 3/4 of the speed in air ...

you can use snell's law and measure this yourself very easy

[sacajaweeda]

It's all Greek to me.

Or Geek.

I can't remember which.

[Garibaldi]

Light is slowed down in water, but are you saying that these particles (which I'm assuming do have mass, not like neutrinos or something) are travelling faster than the speed of light? Or are they still slower than the speed of light in a vacuum?

I can't quote numbers of the top of my head, but I think that in water, the speed of light is around 1/4 to 1/3 less. So, it is relatively easy for a particle to travel faster than the speed of light in water (and yes, it will still be less than the speed of light in vacuum).

What about those theories at www.gravitywarpdrive.com. Any of that look credible or is it just gibberish? Any ideas of how to travel ftl without violating the laws of relativity?

I haven't looked at that site... I'll have a read.

Regards.

yep - 3/4 of the speed in air ...

you can use snell's law and measure this yourself very easy

I see... it makes sense now.

[Ripper2860]

The same formula is also used to prove that the Angle of the Dangle is inversely proportional to Mass of the Ass.

[Shadowmistress]

Ah so this is the equation to account for the difference in speed!

[the bomb]

I thought it was about the Mass Angle

[Capmaster]

THis thread has become a mass perturbation

[sacajaweeda]

You came THIS close to saying masturbation!!!

[Capmaster]

You came THIS close to saying masturbation!!!

I was hoping someone would notice

[Ripper2860]

I thought it was about the Mass Angle

Newtonian physics has proven that...

1) a mass at rest tends to stay at rest unless acted upon by an external force (wife in a revealing lace teddy)

2) a mass in motion tends to stay in motion. At least til the kids come knocking th the door yelling "what are you doing? Why is the door locked?".


Who says physics don't apply top everyday life!!

[sacajaweeda]

No hydraulics involved with yanking my crank.

That's a rather frightening thought, actually.

[Ripper2860]

No hydraulics involved with yanking my crank.

That's a rather frightening thought, actually.

I've edited to put your mind at ease ...

[BJ_M]

Light is slowed down in water, but are you saying that these particles (which I'm assuming do have mass, not like neutrinos or something) are travelling faster than the speed of light? Or are they still slower than the speed of light in a vacuum?

I can't quote numbers of the top of my head, but I think that in water, the speed of light is around 1/4 to 1/3 less. So, it is relatively easy for a particle to travel faster than the speed of light in water (and yes, it will still be less than the speed of light in vacuum).

What about those theories at www.gravitywarpdrive.com. Any of that look credible or is it just gibberish? Any ideas of how to travel ftl without violating the laws of relativity?

I haven't looked at that site... I'll have a read.

Regards.

i meant to comment that anything approching the speed of light in water (see above) would have the same friction as the light encounters . .. i doubt to much that you could get anything going much faster or even close to -- BUT not to far off using a slingshot effect .. ..

Feynman's positrons might be electrons going backwards in time-
As the photon moves through a vacuum, it can generate virtual pairs of electrons and positrons, which typically proceed to annihilate themselves. This looks like a little lepton "bubble" stuck in the middle of the photon propagator. (A photon propagator is just the amplitude for a photon to go from one place to another. It is drawn in a Feynman diagram by a wiggly line, whereas an electron propagator is drawn as a straight or slowly curving line.)

The lepton bubble shows an electron going around a loop. If we think of time increasing to the right, then one of the electrons is going backwards in time. In QED, an electron going backwards in time is equivalent to a positron going forwards in time. So the lepton loop can be interpreted as an electron-positron pair forming at the left vertex and annihilating at the right vertex, allowing the photon to continue on its journey.

Now suppose two photons that are close to each other both generate such a virtual pair, but the electron of one pair happens to annihilate with the positron of the other pair, and vice-versa. Can you see how you can form a fourth-order by combining two photon propagators with loops? The net effect is that the two photons have collided and exchanged energy and momentum. It's an unlikely event, but it can happen. So the answer is that two proximate photons can interact, but it is very unlikely that they will. That we know of - hell we dont even know what a quark is exactly ..





As for antimater:


Antimatter is created by the combination of quantum mechanics and special relativity discovered by Paul Dirac
Max Plank determined that waves such as light also act as particles which became called photons in discrete packets which he called quanta
Since light waves also act like particles, Erwin Schrödinger reasoned that particles might also act like waves and in his quantum mechanical wave equation he showed how electrons and other atomic particles do act like waves.
Paul Dirac, then, did combine the electromagnetic equation of Maxwell Plank, the special relativity of Einstein and his own equations for the behavior of electrons to arrive at a synthesis which suggested two solutions to his equation, one positive and one negative. This would mean that any particle could have either positive or negative energy and therefore there are two kinds [or polarities] of every particle/ wave. For example, an electron can be negative [as usual] or positive [The positive electron was dubbed the "positron", all other reverse-polarity particles are called anti such as antiproton etc.] Dirac explained these antiparticles as representing displaced electrons whose positions were left vacant because the electrons are primarily in the closely packed inner orbits which do not allow for these "holes" to be filled. Dislocating inner electrons is possible by transporting electrons at near light speed velocities in giant electromagnetic rings such as at Fermi Lab in Batavia, IL and CERN [European Organization for Nuclear Research in Switzerland] and IHEP [Institute for High Energy Physics in Russia] and at these near luminous speeds colliding the particles into various metals to dislodge inner electrons from their orbits


oddly enough - you can see perhaps the connection between light and reversal of time and antimater propulsion ..

[Capmaster]

No hydraulics involved with yanking my crank.

That's a rather frightening thought, actually.

Not if you use a file and remove the rough edges first 8)

[the bomb]

thank you for clearing that up Ripper. I don't know where the worm hole goes but now I know what goes in the worm hole.

[sacajaweeda]

I tend to shy away from things more complex than simply moistening the needle before inflating.

[Ripper2860]

No hydraulics involved with yanking my crank.

That's a rather frightening thought, actually.

Not if you use a file and remove the rough edges first 8)

Cap -- Way to thwart a an blatant "threadjack" attempt by BJ_M !!

[Capmaster]

No hydraulics involved with yanking my crank.

That's a rather frightening thought, actually.

Not if you use a file and remove the rough edges first 8)

Cap -- Way to thwart a an blatant "threadjack" attempt by BJ_M !!

The only one who can fully thwart a mod's threadjack is another mod
But BJ_M usually takes 2 or 3 of us